Compliance
ChatGPT Enterprise in Taiwan
Structured issue-spotting for deploying ChatGPT Enterprise in Taiwan, read against the rules for that jurisdiction.
- Source
- Rules engine over a generic brief — no anchored quote on this page
- Verified
- Evidence not verified
- Confidence
- Low
Structured issue-spotting to support your own review — not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources and your counsel.
01What this reading assumes
- Jurisdiction
- Taiwan
- Principal framework
- Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法). Applies to public and non-public agencies, with separate collection and use rules for each. Notice at collection, purpose limitation, and a set of statutory bases are the core; special categories including medical records, genetic data, sexual life, health examination and criminal records are subject to a narrower regime. Article 21 lets the competent authority restrict international transfer in defined circumstances — under the text in force, that is the central sector regulator, and restrictions are issued sector by sector rather than as a general adequacy list.
- Delivery assessed
- Enterprise SaaS
- Data leaves the network
- unknown — the deciding question for a hosted product
- Vendor home jurisdiction
- the United States
- Verified vendor positions
- none — every vendor position below is a question, not an assurance
- Rules evaluated
- 19
- Rules fired
- 12
Assumptions about use
- An internal deployment used by employees, not a public-facing product.
- A person reads the output before acting on it — but that is not recorded, so the engine reports it as a gap rather than assuming it.
- No significant automated decision is taken about a person by the system alone.
02Issues to work through
Cross Cutting
Confidentiality duties bind independently of data protection law
Material can be entirely free of personal data and still be the material a contract stops you disclosing. Client retainers, non-disclosure agreements, supplier contracts and common-law duties are the usual sources, and several of them require consent before a third party processes the material at all — which a model API call is.
- Required checks
- Review the confidentiality clauses in the contracts covering the material going into the system.
- Identify any contract requiring notice or consent before a subcontractor processes the material.
- Decide whether the deployment needs a confidentiality carve-out negotiated into new contracts.
- Vendor questions
- Will the vendor accept a confidentiality undertaking beyond its standard terms?
- Which staff at the vendor can access customer content, under what controls?
- Technical controls
- Segregate the most sensitive corpora into an index that the general assistant cannot reach.
Human review required — take this to your counsel
What ends up in a prompt, and where it goes next
Every prompt is a transfer of whatever it contains. Staff paste more than they intend, retrieved context travels with the prompt, and system prompts can often be extracted from the output. Assume anything reaching the model has left your control unless the contract and the architecture say otherwise.
- Required checks
- Write down which categories of information may be entered into a prompt, and tell people.
- Establish what the system prompt contains and whether disclosing it would matter.
- Establish which shadow tools staff are already using; the policy has to name the permitted ones.
- Vendor questions
- Are prompts and completions retained, for how long, and can retention be set to zero?
- Are prompts used for abuse monitoring, and if so who can read them and for how long?
- Technical controls
- Redact or block high-risk patterns before the prompt leaves the application.
- Keep prompt and completion logs out of general-purpose observability tools.
- Set an explicit retention period on prompt logs and enforce it.
The acceptable-use policy may exclude your use case
Acceptable-use policies commonly carve out unsupervised legal, medical and financial advice, decisions about people without human review, and some surveillance and biometric uses. They are incorporated into the contract by reference and change without a signature, so the version that matters is the one live on the day you rely on it.
- Required checks
- Read the acceptable-use policy against your actual use case, not against a summary of it.
- Where a carve-out applies, decide whether human review brings the use back inside the policy.
- Set a reminder to re-read the policy — it changes without notice to you.
- Vendor questions
- Does your acceptable-use policy permit this use case, and will you confirm that in writing?
- How are we notified when the acceptable-use policy changes?
Human review required — take this to your counsel
Being able to reconstruct a decision months later
The question that arrives after a complaint is what the system was shown and what it produced on a particular day. Models change, prompts change, and indexes are rebuilt, so the answer has to be recorded at the time. Without it, the only available response is that the output cannot be reproduced.
- Required checks
- Decide what is recorded per interaction: model and version, prompt template version, retrieved document ids, output, reviewer and outcome.
- Set how long those records are kept, balanced against the retention duties that also apply to them.
- Vendor questions
- Does the vendor pin model versions, and how much notice is given before a model is retired or changed?
- Technical controls
- Version prompt templates in source control and log the version used.
- Log the model identifier and version returned by the provider, not the one you requested.
Vendor documentation has not been verified
We could not verify a data processing agreement, a subprocessor list, a position on training on customer data and a stated processing region for this vendor from a retrieved document. That is a gap in our evidence, not a finding against the vendor: until a document has been fetched and read, nothing here should be treated as settled either way.
- Required checks
- Obtain the current versions of the processing agreement, subprocessor list, security page and any regional-processing commitment.
- Check that what the sales conversation promised also appears in the contract.
- Vendor questions
- Where is your data processing agreement published, and which version applies to us?
- Where is your subprocessor list, and how much notice do we get before it changes?
- Do you train on customer content by default, and where is that stated contractually?
- In which country or region is inference performed, and where are logs retained?
We were not told whether a person reviews the output
Where output influences a decision about a person, the reviewer has to be able to disagree with it. That needs three things a rubber-stamp review lacks: enough information to judge, enough time to judge, and an override that is used often enough to be real. Design it before the volume makes it impossible.
- Required checks
- Name the role that reviews the output and what they see when they do.
- Decide what evidence is retained about each review, so the practice can be shown to exist.
- Set a threshold below which the system must not act without review.
- Vendor questions
- Does the product expose the retrieved context and the confidence behind a suggestion, or only the answer?
- Technical controls
- Show the reviewer the retrieved sources next to the suggestion, not the suggestion alone.
- Record the reviewer’s decision, including overrides, as part of the audit trail.
Human review required — take this to your counsel
An AI deployment creates new copies of the data
Vector indexes, prompt logs, completion caches, evaluation datasets, fine-tuning checkpoints and backups are all copies of the source material in places the existing retention schedule does not mention. Deletion requests are the moment this is discovered, because deleting the source document does not delete its embedding.
- Required checks
- List every store the deployment creates and add each to the retention schedule.
- Establish how a deletion request propagates to the index, the caches and the logs.
- Establish how long backups keep material that has been deleted from the live system.
- Vendor questions
- What does the vendor retain, where, and for how long after we delete our copy?
- Technical controls
- Store the source document id with every embedding so deletion can cascade.
- Set time-to-live on prompt and completion logs rather than relying on manual cleanup.
The vendor’s terms may not permit the deployment you are planning
Provider terms routinely restrict things architectures assume: sharing seats, building a competing service, benchmarking and publishing results, reselling capacity, and processing certain data categories. A consumer or self-serve plan often carries different terms from the enterprise agreement, and the enterprise agreement is the one worth reading.
- Required checks
- Identify which contract actually governs — self-serve terms, an order form, or a negotiated agreement.
- Check restrictions on seat sharing and on service accounts, which a shared internal assistant can breach without anyone noticing.
- Check whether the terms allow the categories of data you intend to send.
- Vendor questions
- Which agreement governs our use, and can we have the current version in writing?
- Are there restrictions on the data categories or the industries we may use the service for?
Taiwan
Article 21 restrictions come from your sector regulator, one destination at a time
Taiwan has no general permission regime for international transfer. Article 21 lets the competent authority restrict transfer where national interests are involved, where a treaty applies, where the receiving jurisdiction lacks adequate protection, or where the transfer evades the Act — and under the text in force that authority is the central sector regulator. Restrictions are published sector by sector; the live example is the Food and Drug Administration order covering western-medicine wholesale and retail, effective 1 October 2026.
- Required checks
- Identify your central sector regulator and check whether it has issued an Article 21 order.
- Check the destinations named in any order, which increasingly include Hong Kong and Macau as well as mainland China.
- Re-check periodically; orders arrive without a central register.
- Vendor questions
- In which jurisdictions is our content processed and stored, and can that be restricted contractually?
Human review required — take this to your counsel
PDPA — collection, notice, and reading the version that is in force
The Personal Data Protection Act requires a statutory basis for collection and processing by a non-public agency, a specific purpose, and notice at collection. The database entry currently displays the amendment promulgated on 11 November 2025 alongside a warning that some or all provisions have not taken effect and the effective date is undetermined — so the text on screen is not necessarily the law that binds you.
- Required checks
- Confirm which version you are reading before citing an article number.
- Check the specific purpose registered or stated for the data now going into the system.
- Treat the amendment as a planned change with no date rather than as current law.
Human review required — take this to your counsel
There is no central data protection regulator to talk to yet
The Executive Yuan set up a Preparatory Office to establish the Personal Data Protection Commission, and the provisional rules say the Office is abolished only when the Commission is created. Until then, supervision runs through the central sector regulator for your industry, which is also where any international transfer restriction would come from. Vendor materials naming the Commission as your regulator are describing a body that does not yet exist.
- Required checks
- Identify the central sector regulator that supervises your industry for personal data purposes.
- Direct notifications, filings and enquiries there rather than to the Commission.
- Watch for the organic act, which is what will move supervision to the Commission.
The AI Basic Act is in force, and it directs government rather than deployers
The Artificial Intelligence Basic Act took effect on the date of its promulgation, 14 January 2026. It names the National Science and Technology Council as central competent authority, requires the Executive Yuan to establish a National AI Strategic Committee, and requires related laws to be enacted, amended or repealed within two years. It carries no penalties for a private deployer: the duties that will bite come from the sectoral law that programme produces, and from the Ministry of Digital Affairs risk classification framework issued under it.
- Required checks
- Treat the two-year law-adaptation programme as a watch item on the deployment’s review schedule.
- Use the Ministry of Digital Affairs risk classification framework as the local vocabulary for describing risk.
Structured issue-spotting to support your own review — not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources and your counsel.
03What this reading does not know
- Whether any of the data falls into a special or sensitive category.
- Whether any material is covered by legal professional privilege.
- Whether prompts or documents leave the company network.
- Whether a person reviews the output before it is acted on.
04Instruments these issues point at
- statuteAI Basic ActA framework act of twenty articles. Names the National Science and Technology Council as central competent authority, directs the Executive Yuan to establish a National AI Strategic Committee convened by the Premier, and requires related laws to be enacted, amended or repealed within two years of the effective date. It imposes no penalties on private deployers.
- standardMODA AI Risk FrameworkRisk classification framework issued by the Ministry of Digital Affairs under the Artificial Intelligence Basic Act, effective on the date of issue. It gives Taiwanese deployments a local vocabulary for describing AI risk that sits alongside, rather than replaces, the sectoral rules.
- regulationPDPC Preparatory Office RulesThe Executive Yuan established a Preparatory Office to set up the future Personal Data Protection Commission. Its listed tasks include drafting the Commission’s organic legislation, and Article 5 provides that the Office is abolished when the Commission is established — which is why the Commission does not yet exist as a regulator.
- statutePDPATaiwan’s data protection statute, with separate regimes for public and non-public agencies and a narrower regime for special categories. The version on the Ministry of Justice database carries a warning that some or all provisions have not yet taken effect and that the last effective date is undetermined, so the amended text is not the law in force.
- regulationTFDA Transfer RestrictionAn order made under PDPA Article 21 subparagraph 3, restricting western-medicine wholesale and retail businesses from transferring data subjects’ personal data to mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. Included as the working example of how Taiwanese cross-border restrictions actually arrive: from a sector regulator, for one sector, naming specific destinations.
05Vendor documents being watched
- Data processing agreementhttps://openai.com/policies/data-processing-addendum/not yet fetched
- Pricinghttps://openai.com/chatgpt/pricing/not yet fetched
- Pricinghttps://openai.com/api/pricing/not yet fetched
- Privacy policyhttps://openai.com/policies/privacy-policy/not yet fetched
- Security pagehttps://openai.com/enterprise-privacy/not yet fetched
- Security pagehttps://openai.com/security-and-privacy/not yet fetched
- Security pagehttps://trust.openai.com/not yet fetched
- Subprocessor listhttps://openai.com/policies/sub-processor-list/not yet fetched
- Supported countrieshttps://platform.openai.com/docs/supported-countriesnot yet fetched
- Supported countrieshttps://developers.openai.com/api/docs/supported-countriesnot yet fetched
- Terms of servicehttps://openai.com/policies/business-terms/not yet fetched
06Ask about your own deployment
This page reads the rules against a generic organisation. Your size, industry, data and existing contracts change which of these issues matter and which fall away.